Following the season's final game, Rosario was out to dinner with his family and sent a series of crass and offensive tweets about school administrators and his coach:

1. Mr. Isaacs is a b*tch too 2. I hope Coach brown gets f*cked in the *ss by 10 black d*cks 3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me 4. Fuck coach browns bitch *ss 5. Finally this b*tch *ss season is over 6. Aiight I'm done y'all can go snitch now like before 7. Oh yea and Mr. DInkel's square *ss 8. AND Ms. Evans b*tch *ss boyfriend too He a p*ssy ass n*gg* tryna talk shit while walking away

Etiquette breach (while at family dinner) aside, school administrators were not happy. They punished Rosario for his tweets under a cyberbullying statute. The text of the statute read as follows:

"A member of the board of trustees of a school district, any employee of the board of trustees, including, without limitation, an administrator, principal, teacher or other staff member, or any pupil shall not engage in bullying cyber-bullying, harassment or intimidation on the premises of any public school, at any activity sponsored by a public school, or on any school bus."[emphasis added]

As you can see from the emphasis Venkat Balasubramani added, this collection of tweets should have remained outside the purview of the policy used to suspend Rosario. But that didn't stop the offended parties from kicking the student out of school. Unfortunately for the administration, Rosario's family took them to court, searching for injunctive relief from the suspension. (Rosario was ultimately allowed to transfer to a different school.) That was denied due to lack of irreparable harm and the school district filed a motion to dismiss. That didn't go quite as smoothly.

Rosario's family brought a "slew of other claims," but most notable is the First Amendment claim, which the court will allow to move forward.

As to Rosario's First Amendment claim, the defendants argued that the speech in question was not protected speech at all because it was "racist, violent, offensive, and hateful." The court (correctly) rejects this argument saying that the only legal basis for the speech in question to possibly be unprotected is obscenity, and this only applies to one tweet.

The court also notes that school administrators can discipline students for off-campus speech, but they need to show "substantial disruption" has occurred oncampus in order to justify suspensions or expulsions. This district's policy covers a very limited area -- Balasubramani points out that its specific wording makes it unlikely to be enforceable against "activities in cyberspace," no matter if these activities happened during school events or on school grounds.

Cyberbullying policies have the built-in potential to cripple free speech, thanks to the general shift towards subjectivity, rather than objectivity. Beyond that, these policies seem to encourage a culture of heightened sensitivity and overreaction in far too many administrators.

There must be something in school administrators' DNA that causes a heightened reaction when they see their name mentioned in social media. The tweets were ill-advised at best and crass, depressing even. But I wonder whether the school would have been better off using this as a teaching moment rather than taking a harsher disciplinary approach that was not necessarily on solid First Amendment grounds.

The fact that the school relied on the cyberbullying statute is telling, and a good illustration that these types of statutes are often used in an unintended manner, to improperly suppress speech. It's a stretch at best to argue that tweets from a private account—that would not have reached the coach or administrators absent their inquiry—somehow amounted to "cyber-bullying".

This last point is also rather crucial. The district punished a student for tweets administrators never would have seen without jumping through some extra hoops. Rosario's Twitter account was private, meaning these were only shared with followers. While the court doesn't agree this gives Rosario an "expectation of privacy" in regards to his claims of Fourth Amendment violations, it does bring into question how much work administrators had to do simply to recover the tweets that offended them so much. It should have been a teachable moment, or at worst, something that could have been ignored.

Reader Comments

Pornography filters were for the children and now they are used to censor speech. Site blockades were meant to protect the children and now they are used to block virtually anything that displeases the ones with the economic power. Bullying/Cyberbullying laws and policies were created to protect the children.....

Maybe it's just me but if all the attempts to protect the children seem to backfire into destroying their futures we should stop trying to protect them and maybe let parents do the parenting...

Assault and Battery? Really?

Don't get me wrong. I think the school administrators are a bunch of asshats, but this claim takes things a bit far.

From the PDF:
Frank Rosario alleges an assault and battery claim against Gygatz because "Gygatz approached Frank from behind and rubbed him 'shoulder to shoulder' and told him what a class act that was."

Re: Assault and Battery? Really?

Rubbing 'shoulder to shoulder' is construed as assault?

I think they used the wrong term. That isn't assault. However, it might be considered battery:

The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff.

It would seem appropriate for school teachers and admins to have certain training and experience in the field of not being pretentious little shits, you know - like a lot of teens are. But I suppose that is asking too much.

"The court also notes that school administrators can discipline students for off-campus speech"

[Citation Required] I know, but the Supreme Court has encouraged this kind of behavior from school administrators the past 20 years every time the question of children's rights come up.

Unfortunately those rulings reinforce that if your child is in public school, the government, acting through school administrators, act as your child's Third Parent, and have the same rights you do to arbitrary and indiscriminate punishment for anything they don't like, 24x7, even if you approved the conduct. But the punishment only can be enforced at school -- so banishment is the punishment preferred by school administrators.

I'd like to believe this lower court ruling would stand on appeal, and we can only see if the school doesn't feel like fighting.

Re: Career Choice

I've often felt that way about Police Officers, and come to think of it, nearly anybody in public service.

It's the reverse of service workers (ie checkout clerks), who have to deal with "the public" but are powerless to do anything about being abused. Public Servants almost always have some unaccountable power, and are not afraid to use it maliciously...

Re: Career Choice

If nobody is at home to teach a kid how to respect others through discipline, how can the school staff not be expected to teach that you don't tweet "My coach likes to take it in the ass" by suspension via said discipline. Rosario tweeted to and tagged the targeted staff members. They could have made it a civil case of slander and liable but decided to not be total douche bags and merely suspended him.

If he did that in college...professors would be well within their rights to fail him and worst case scenario he would be banned for life from campus because of slander. So by learning not to do stupid shit like Rosario did, they are being prepped for college.

Re: Re: Career Choice

Ah, no, I don't think so - I'd expect failing a student would land a professor in an internal grade grievance arbitration at least. I think you might have an inflated sense of faculty powers, Wally. Academic freedom is not absolute (especially when exercised for nonacademic purposes, as your hypothetical appears to qualify.)

Professors have to have as thick a skin as anyone. Though they probably wouldn't be fired (as a teacher might) for saying Rosario did stupid shit.

Re: Re: Career Choice

They could have been laughed out of civil court for trying to make 'a civil case of slander and liable' out of "My coach likes to take it in the ass."

I don't know what college you went to but public remarks to that effect were not grounds for unilateral failure or banning from campus for life. That said, colleges are generally private institutions. Government run schools have to play by different rules.

Re: Re: Career Choice

how can the school staff not be expected to teach that you don't tweet "My coach likes to take it in the ass"

Unless the tweets were causing a problem in the school (which they apparently weren't), then its' not the school staff's place to teach that at all. And if it was, then a stern scolding would have been more appropriate.

They could have made it a civil case of slander and liable but decided to not be total douche bags and merely suspended him.

There's no way a slander/libel case would have been successful. Those tweets were clearly emotional expressions that nobody would have taken as assertions of fact.

If he did that in college...professors would be well within their rights to fail him and worst case scenario he would be banned for life from campus because of slander.

Maybe. It depends on the code of conduct for the particular college. Nonetheless, there are some big differences between the two. High school is mandatory and the students are minors (so they can't enter into contracts), for example. College is optional, and college students are adults capable of agreeing to contractual terms such as a code of conduct.

Re: Re: Career Choice

This is a very good introduction for the students to Cognitive Dissonance. They are taught about the Bill of Rights and must regurgitate details of same upon testing whilst at the same time are subjected to treatment which is the complete opposite of what they are being taught.

Brilliant!

This will soon create a whole new generation of conflicted and deranged people.

Respect and school

First and foremost policy of any school is that you can in fact be critical of the current administration. But when you tweet about and to school administrators, faculty, and staff in the way this asshole kid did, and note they were targeted specifically from all the other school staff, you deserve to be suspended. Please note Rosario got suspended for his disrespectful actions and he was not at all exercising his first amendment rights by harassing his targets. He wasn't censored, he was suspended. Note the hours of the tweets...are they not during school hours?

Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

i'll say this for the millionth time, and i'll probably say it a million more, 'cause there are an infinite supply of moral scolds like wall-eye who simply don't 'get it':

you have the right to NOT be assaulted; you do NOT have the right to NOT be insulted...

being for free speech ABSOLUTELY means you give your worst enemy the freedom to say the most horrific things, OTHERWISE IT IS NOT FREE SPEECH...

ANY fucking 'tard can 'defend' anyone to say shit which nobody disagrees with or is inoffensive, or is immaterial; OBSCENE, DISGUSTING free speech is EXACTLY the type of speech which EVERYONE should support the RIGHT TO EXPRESS...
(NOT that you agree with it, but that you defend their right to say it...)

go climb on an iceberg already, wall-eye, your contribution to society is done and you are simply holding us back...

oh, AND you didn't read the details, AND you are simply saying "well, i don't like what he said, it was disrespectful, he deserves to be suspended/hung from his thumbs/boiled in oil/whatever..."

so thin-skinned you get insulted by others getting insulted ? grow a pair, wall-eye...

bad enough kids hardly have any rights as individuals, doubly bad they take out of school commentary and punish him for it, and triply bad that rebar-up-the-butt douches can't take criticism (whether deserved or not)...

cheese and crackers, SWMBO and her cohorts hear as bad or worse on a daily basis at the school where she teaches; they suspended all the kids for 'mouthing off' (IN SCHOOL TO TEACHERS IN PERSON), they'd have close to zero students left at the end of the year...

(now, don't get me wrong: it is not 'right' that kids do this, but that is REALITY, not wishes and hopes... now, the fact is these are ADULTS (read: a dolts) and PART OF THEIR JOB is to deal with the 'unfair' (and 'fair') abuse CHILDREN -repeat CHILDREN- dole out to them... if they can't deal with that, THEY ARE IN THE WRONG PROFESSION...)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

Kids dont have many rights because they dont deserve them. The y are property of their parents until they become a legal majority (Age 18 in the US). They EARN their rights by being a respectful and productive member of society

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

The y are property of their parents until they become a legal majority (Age 18 in the US).

There is no sense in which this is true. Parents are the children's guardians until the age of majority, but that in no way equates to an ownership situation.

They EARN their rights by being a respectful and productive member of society

No. Rights are not "earned" -- those are privileges. People who are not respectful or productive members of society have exactly as many rights people who are.

Further, you have just as many rights as a child as you do as an adult. The only difference is that your parents exercise those rights on your behalf until you reach a certain age (not necessarily 18, it depends on the particular right). It's a bit like power of attorney.

And parents cannot exercise those rights in any way they see fit. If they are exceptionally negligent about that, then the child can successfully sue them once they reach 18 (as several child stars who had their income misused by their parents have done).

Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

What you just said was just as offensive, crass, and juvenile as what Rosario tweeted. It's also just as much of a constitutionally protected opinion as his was. That aside, your hypocrisy is unmeasurable.

PS... Your comment is also equally as likely to get prosecuted for slander.

Re: Re: Respect and school

His blocking the administration, faculty, and staff from seeing his tweets and saying those things about them is slander...since it was a "private" tweet to everyone but the school district staff...I don't see how it's not public. It's slander because the staff had to take extra steps to see what was going on to defend themselves.

Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

His blocking the administration, faculty, and staff from seeing his tweets and saying those things about them is slander...since it was a "private" tweet to everyone but the school district staff...I don't see how it's not public.

He didn't go through any extra steps to "block" the adminstration, it was tweeted privately to only his followers. Although I agree, legally, it is still considered "public".

It's slander because the staff had to take extra steps to see what was going on to defend themselves.

That sentence makes zero sense. Whether something is construed as slanderous (or libelous like this case) has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone defending themselves. It's either libelous or not based on the actual wording and that is a determination made in a court of law.

Re: Re: Respect and school

"First off, how did you jump to "harassment"? All I see is Rosario expressing his opinion in those tweets.

And yes, he most definitely was exercising his First Amendment rights. Just like you were when you typed: "Tim Cushing likes to take it in the ass!!" below.

The First Amendment applies to everyone, not just the people you agree with."

My point is with Tim Cushing's ass is to illustrate that just because someone has an opinion, it doesn't make it right to express said opinion on public channels where everyone can see and where people can be embarrassed.

Second, slander and liable are NOT protected by the first amendment under freedom of expression.

3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me

Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

Second, slander and liable are NOT protected by the first amendment under freedom of expression.

What did he tweet that was libelous? It all looks like opinion or wishful musing to me except for maybe the last tweet and even that comes off more as an opinion of someone else's actions than anything else to me.

Re: Re: Re: Respect and school

"he blocked the administration"

Where do you get that from? His Twitter account was set up so that only those who were his followers could read his tweets. His teachers weren't followers, which is no fault of his own. He didn't actively block them, they were simply never the recipients of his tweets.
To give a non cyber space example, it would be like he wrote down these statements on paper and mailed them to his followers. He didn't mail them to his teachers.

Re: On a side note...

You do realize there is no First Amendment right to speech on a privately owned website, do you? While I hope and fully expect Mike to never actively block speech here on Techdirt, he would be entirely within his rights to do so.

Re: On a side note...

What do teachers and principles expect when they go to work at public school. A field of Daisies where everyone loves and respects them. I would find it very hard to care that a 15 year old was sending profane tweets about me. Don't these people have anything better to do with their taxpayer paid for time?

Re:

Public schools are public. You learn daily not just about math, history, science, or geography....you go there to learn in subtext about how to respect those who are paid very little to teach your sorry 15 year old ass a thing of two so you don't starve to death.

It should be noted my father was a teacher. Students complained about him but he was respected nonetheless. Rosario would have been suspended from my alma matar public school district for these tweets.

Now here's the thing. The kid was angry. He decided to target staff that he felt was failing him. He was failing and he blamed the staff for not working hard enough when he should have been doing his work.

Re: Re:

There is a thing about those who demand respect - they generally don't deserve one iota of it. Many bad experiences of the mind-fuck of teachers saying "Respect is earned" followed by demanding respect.

Re: Re:

He decided to target staff that he felt was failing him

Please cite appropriate '@'. Without the '@', its just venting.

He didn't go '@' anyone he was venting about, and only his followers/friends could see the tweets. That is until the thin-skinned admins 'caught wind' of dissonance, and spent time and taxpayer money looking for the tweets.

The school needs to hang their heads, apologize for being intrusive and childish, and let this be forgotten. The longer this goes on, the worse they look.

Rosario was cut from the basketball team. Then he appealed to the coach who barely played him or put him in second string....and because Rosario thought he was better than everyone else...he decided to publicly tweet about his coach saying he is a bitch [likely for making him work hard for what he wanted...because you know...that's what coaches are paid to do].

Tim Cushing, I'm sorry, but he got suspended on his own merits for his disrespect and not handling the rejection like a man. Rosario is a pussy for not being man enough to accept that he got cut from the team for a reason.

Let the kid suffer for his actions. If his shitty parents wont teach him how to handle rejection instead of letting him expect to be a snowflake and play despite the fact that he sucked at basketball, then the school should teach it to him. Its obvious this kid has shitty parents if they not only allow their kid to talk like that but in addition condone it by suing the school saying he should have the right to talk with a mouth like that. In my day he wouldve gotten a wooden spoon to the ass and soap in his mouth if he talked like that

Re: Re: Re:

No...You sort of misunderstand my take on it. My dad's first few years as a teacher, students had always complained about him. But they still held respect for him.

Here's the thing, when a someone takes the time to teach you something you have no knowledge of and has to grade your aptitude and you slack off and do poorly..how much respect does that show the teacher?

My father was notoriously awesome as a teacher and won Teacher of the Year in my school district (which is a student and staff and board held vote) 20 times in his 33 year teaching career.

Now if a kid slacked off in his class and my dad did everything within his power to help the student falling behind, but the student still failed and then called him a douchebag (note my brother has severe Asperger's Syndrome so my dad is very patient) that kid would get a smile from my dad and get a detention.

Now imagine this kid going further with the same crap on multiple staff...you earn enough detentions there will be consequences...namely suspension.

Now what makes Rosario's case a bit interesting is he did his tweeting in the evening when a basketball game was going on....a school function....he implied that the coach and assistant coach were gay lovers and that the coach that cut him likes to take it in the ass. He likely got cut due to grade eligibility which is why he called one of his teachers a douchebag. He deserves suspension.

I would not be bullying by beating up a bully by standing up for my father's well deserved honor.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes. Exactly...Libel and slander are similar and are not protected under the first amendment. As you said, the administration and school staff were blocked from seeing it. His tweets, if truly legally private, would only be seen by him on twitter. Since Rosario's tweets were not the legal definition of private, it stands that he was libel in his expression. The suspension was punishment for his libel.

3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me

That is the indicator that it not only was public to everyone, but meant as harassment as well.

In this case everyone but the school staff and admin saw it. The digital evolution we live in as Generation Y, and X has a much bigger potential for the public to see things and therefore perceptions change due to another person's raging and ragging.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Read...

Since Rosario's tweets were not the legal definition of private....Explanation footnote that I really shouldn't have to write: he blocked ONLY the administrative and school staff from seeing his tweets......back to the second part of my statement it stands that he was libel in his expression

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"he blocked ONLY the administrative and school staff from seeing his tweets....."

For that to be true, he had to ACTIVELY block them, as in the teachers would have had to click "Follow" on his Twitter account and he blocked them. There is no mention of that. He did not block them, he simply never sent the messages to them!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Let me be more explicit. Nothing was missed. What you wrote was just flat wrong because you don't know what libel actually is. The fact that these tweets were not private doesn't make it libel. If he blocked the administrators from seeing them that doesn't make it libel either. What you've got here is a non sequitor. It makes about as much since as saying 'Because its purple it stands that he was libel in his expression.' No, it doesn't because that's not what libel is.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Sorry, Gwiz corrected my word use. Libel is slander in written form. Libel occurs when the libelous party complains about a person or group to change public opinion about said person or group or just to harass them. The third tweet in the article is a clear indicator Rosario's intention of harassment due to teenage angst and him being a bit of a pussy

(sorry, but if you complain after being cut and put back in on an appeal you gave to the coach who may have played you second or third string and barely put you into play...and aren't grateful you aren't on a team...you are a pussy)...

anyway..tangent aside, his intent was harassment and the difference with Libel is that no damages have to happen to make it a civil case against someone as long as the opinions can drastically change public perception. The press is protected as long as they do not give opinions without reason...giving opinions with reason is editorial press and blogging. The school could have sued him but didn't. The suspension was justifiable.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wally, look at your hypocrisy here. Read your comment there, you're calling the kid a pussy. Now, Rosario isn't the target of that comment, you're not e-mailing it to him, but the standards you've set up in your earlier comments, you now are as guilty as he is for libel (he called his teachers gay, you're calling him a pussy). What if Rosario reads this, would he be fully justified in getting you sacked from your job?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

When you rage on like that about your teachers and about your coach who you had to appeal to to get on the basketball team in a place you didn't deserve...potentially because you're bad at basketball and you've gotten bad grades....and you start whining about how they are stupid...I'm sure that its a given fact that you're a pussy.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Maybe so...but again, you are being HYPOCRITICAL. Rosario didn't send his comments to his teachers, but published it online for his followers to read, with nasty comments (no-one here is disputing the comments were nasty). Here you are, doing the EXACT SAME THING, not sending your comment (pussy) to Rosario directly, but publishing it online for your fellow Techdirt commentators to see (for all we know Rosario could be one of them).
So why, in your view, is it wrong for the kid to do so, but apparently all right for you?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states

1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

So then, the US government can completely ignore Article 17 (1) when it comes to the NSA spying programs (they violate Section 215 of the Patriot Act, so are unlawful) but could invoke it (via the school) when someone calls a teacher a few nasty names?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Exactly. And as the AC commented...some of Rosario's followers may only ever see Rosario in school...so even if I'm wrong or right, no matter the ruling, the AC's comment on the threats that Rosario's third statement can be perceived by one of his followers as an intimidating threat only to be carried out on school grounds if confronted by Rosario, is entirely and undeniably grounds for suspension. It's a threat that could only possibly carried out on school grounds.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You're jumping the gun. Nowhere did we agree with you that any of these tweets were threats, harassment, or libelous. We were only pointing out how wrong you were. If your definition was used, then you would be guilty of the same crime and should be punished accordingly.

You're not guilty, but that's only because your definition is absolutely and completely wrong.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If my definitions are wrong then all I need told (and no you're not guilty of this) the definitions are wrong so I can correct my word use. Chrono, you are notl guilty of telling me my opinion is wrong when my word use is wrong (it happens often) but some do try to tell me my opinion is wrong while correcting my word use.

Just simply tell me the WORD I got wrong and explain it to me in a way outside of "Wally stupid"

It wasn't simply the terminology you were getting wrong. You were also not grasping some of the basic concepts involved either.

In my opinion, all of the tweets are protected speech except for #2 as stated by the court. All of this happened outside the purview of the school district and therefore their discipline was inappropriate.

Do I think Rosario's an ass who should be disciplined? Absolutely. But, not by the school because it's none of their business. His parents are the ones who should have disciplined him and if it was me the first thing I would have done is take his phone away. But being a shitty parent usually isn't against the law.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Libel occurs when the libelous party complains about a person or group to change public opinion about said person or group or just to harass them."

Again, that's not what libel is. Hilariously though your continued use of the sexist label 'pussy' would make you libelous under your own definitions of libel. So it seems that even you understand on some level that that's not what libel is.

Wally, you said this
"sorry, but if you complain after being cut and put back in on an appeal you gave to the coach who may have played you second or third string and barely put you into play...and aren't grateful you aren't on a team...you are a pussy)..."

Rosario called his teacher the EXACT SAME NAME you are calling Rosario but for some reason, it's alright for you to do so in more or less the exact same way?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Why are you focusing on Wally being hypocritical when he's already stated the evidence that Rosario is a raging pussy.

Rosario made the scond string basketball team on appeal and tweeted that he hopes his coach gets 10 black cocks in the ass...

Now given there is sufficient reason he didn't play very much during that final game, and given his tweet that was SHARED WITH HIS TWITTER FOLLWERS....WHICH IS LEGALLY PUBLIC..I would say that Wally's opinion stands to be reasonable.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I don't care about the "evidence", what I'm saying is that both people, Rosario and Wally, are calling other people "a pussy" which is a pejorative, an insult. According to Wally (and you apparently), publishing said insult publicly for people to read, even if not sent directly to those named in the insults, is slander/libel, and thus merits punishment. Both Wally and Rosario have done the exact same thing here, and yet, according to Wally, only Rosario deserves punishment, and not himself.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I don't care about the "evidence""

Which is why you failed to perceive the views of the staff and administrators.

Let's break this down for you.

1. Kid gets cut from team during tryouts.
2. Kid gets in on an appeal and gets third string even though he wouldn't have made the cut.
3. After final game of season kid whines on Twitter using not only homophobic but also racist stereotype metaphors that he hopes his coach gets fucked in the ass by 10 black dicks"....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

In legal terms, the fact that he was cut from the team has nothing to do with anything. Let's ignore it, because it's meaningless.
So what if he actually is a "wet pussy"? Why is it you fail to understand that you are being hypocritical? Rosario called someone a pussy and published the name calling for his followers to read. He gets expelled.
You call Rosario a pussy and published the name calling for your fellow commentators to read. Why don't you get punished? Why is it okay for you to go around calling a kid names (really, you a full grown adult are killing a kid names? Real mature you are...)?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wally: a suggestion: stop digging yourself into a deeper hole. This is not the first time I've seen you do this. You make wild, completely incorrect statements showing a near complete lack of knowledge (combined with your own insistence that you know what you're talking about based on some ridiculous call to authority that makes no sense), and then go off on some crazy attempt to defend your false statements.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Admittedly I can be wrong. I understand that. I come from growing up in the house of a teacher. The problem is that I'm having a hard time seeing why Rosario shouldn't be suspended for this. I have given many a reason at why I'm inclined to believe he should actually be suspended and it is beyond SLAPP.

Let's look at this a moment please.

1. We know Rosario did not share the series of tweets with the staff and that they found out on their own through other channels

2. I'm saying basically right now that it's LIKELY that one of his followers may have reported the tweets which is why the staff found out and suspended him.

3. From the article I have been accused of not reading carefully (not by you):

"Rosario's Twitter account was private, meaning these were only shared with followers."
So what if someone retweeted that didn't have their privacy settings set up correctly? Is this possible?

And tweet number 2
" I hope Coach brown gets fucked in the ass by 10 black dick"

Both pretty offensive and derogatory to the staff there."

"As to Rosario's First Amendment claim, the defendants argued that the speech in question was not protected speech at all because it was "racist, violent, offensive, and hateful." The court (correctly) rejects this argument saying that the only legal basis for the speech in question to possibly be unprotected is obscenity, and this only applies to one tweet."

Two tweets containing Homophobic and racist comments about the staff to his peers or followers on Twitter....who can retweet as much as they wish to whomever they wish. I don't think the staff went through a couple of hacking loops to get there.

5. "The court also notes that school administrators can discipline students for off-campus speech, but they need to show "substantial disruption""

According to the UN, everybody has the right to defend themselves from Deframation. The school staff did this admirably.

Like I said, I cannot see why Rosario cannot be suspended.

The question I have is what lesson does this ruling teach Rosario? I agree with the judge's ruling, but I can't help but imagine to think what Rosario would learn from this. I mean he's allowed to continue saying what he saying when he wants to. The punishment may have been from a minor disruption, but even if it is a private account on Twitter, can his tweets not be retweeted? What does this teach him in terms of respect and finding a better way to vent than public humiliation?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

According to the UN, everybody has the right to defend themselves from Deframation.

No, it says that everyone has the right to defend themselves against unlawful defamation. The tweets weren't unlawful.

Like I said, I cannot see why Rosario cannot be suspended.

That's fair. I cannot understand why he should be suspended for speech that was not made using school property and that did not disrupt the school. It looks for all the world like petty retaliation on the part of the school simply because they were offended, not corrective action intended to resolve some kind of serious problem.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

A lot of the "perceived threat" really comes into play with the fact that the only way for one of his followers to see that tweet is if they are close friends or merely classmates.

Legality aside, on a psychological level, the threat is perceived by the eye of the beholder reporting it. The problem we have here is that the person who may have reported it merely did what all humans do with perceived threats...hit the panic button. So it's likely the person reporting it may have felt threatened by number 3. Sounds crazy but it's very likely that due in part the only place this person would see Rosario is on school grounds. Almost like a bomb threat, but not as serious...almost like an unwarranted fire drill. The perceived threat of Rosario coming after that individual on school grounds is a situation that could only happen on school grounds, and my only guess outside of pettiness on behalf of the school itself, that is likely the cause of the suspension in general.

Another fair question I often asked is what if by being petty the staff were protecting the identity of the person who showed them the tweet?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

In my opinion, it should have been completely ignored by the school unless the speech was actually causing a problem. But if the officials really felt like something had to be done, a stern talking-to would have been sufficient.

This is precisely how it would have been handled in both my grade and high schools -- I know because I went to rough schools, and this kind of smack talk was not terribly uncommon amongst a certain subset of the students. The technology involved is irrelevant.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Libel occurs when the libelous party complains about a person or group to change public opinion about said person or group or just to harass them."

That is not the definition of libel. Libel requires that the statements be not opinion, lies, and intended to do harm. These tweets were none of those. He obviously intended insult, but he didn't intend harm. They were obviously opinion, so they can't be lies. That kinda kills the rest of your post.

"The school could have sued him but didn't. The suspension was justifiable."

So because the school could have sued the kid and lost, suspension is OK? I don't think so.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Well yes and no in my opinion. His intent was also harrassment and intimidation of his Twitter followers. Someone snitched on him.

Take a good look and think about what the third tweet entails.

3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me

The school lost the case but likely suspended him for this. It's not the same level as a bb threat but the intimidation in this regaurd of fellow students off hours can lawfully be treated as harassment..in which the school can motion to have the order recinded and haven't....or as a lessor form of a bomb threat...under a bomb threat the student would be sent to juvenile hall and since this was not one, a suspension is within reason.....of course it should be noted that his Tweet there indicated he knew the school would eventually find out his comments through the grapevine which makes his statement a perceivable harmful threat...once again that is lawfully dispensable if it occurs during off school hours.

But since people are too dumb or too douchebaggy to take things written in policy word for word...I see the judge's ruling sort of correct even though the grounds of suspension were within reason.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"But since people are too dumb or too douchebaggy to take things written in policy word for word.."

You wrote that? You actually wrote that, wally? LOL! I actually had to stop there for a moment, cause I simply could not stop laughing.
If the school had taken their policy word for word (as written in this article, which you have failed to read)
""A member of the board of trustees of a school district, any employee of the board of trustees, including, without limitation, an administrator, principal, teacher or other staff member, or any pupil shall not engage in bullying cyber-bullying, harassment or intimidation on the premises of any public school, at any activity sponsored by a public school, or on any school bus." [emphasis added]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

???? Just because you're an insider on techdirt doesn't give you the right to act like a douche....and unfortunately for you abd your [undeseved] dignity I'm an anonymous coward. Just because I jump to Wally's defense doesn't mean I'm him. Where's your brain at?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Very well then, if you are in fact not Wally, then I apologize for calling you by his name. (However, I highly doubt that you aren't)
However, my point still stands. You argued in defense of the school punishing this student, by saying that those criticizing them are "too dumb or too douchebaggy to take things written in policy word for word.."
when the school, by their own written policy, couldn't and shouldn't have taken action against the student.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So if Rosario tweets a bomb threat or intimdates his peers via twitter not to speak out about the disrespect he's shown is totally legal and the school can't suspend him for it? I mean after all both are off school premises, both are announced to classmates. So was there standing reason to suspend him due to eminent threat?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

If he actually had tweeted a bomb threat, then yes, he should be punished. However, HE DIDN'T. He did not threaten anyone! At worst, there's a very vague implication of a threat, which is not enough to say he is guilty of making a threat

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ah yes, but you argued that the threats and
Harassment had to be on school grounds.

A bomb threat is calling into a place and literally saying there is a bomb and stating you're the one setting it off.

Tweeting a bomb threat to a school would definitely be punishable because it happens on school grounds.

You failed to notice something and missed your own claims in that and the AC's rebuttal. You mentioned that the tweet only went to his followers which include friends from school and a few classmates. The AC mentioned that it is likely that one if his mere classmates could have shared that tweet with the staff. The third tweet is definitely a threat (PhD in Psychology remember??) to anyone who would tell on him.

Now given that information the AC expanded on the idea that since the third tweet, which can be perceived as a threat...as it is in the eye of the beholder and that's all US law cares about...,as long as it is a reasonable threat, it is grounds for suspension.

Now what does this mean...
It means that one of his followers may have perceived a threat from Rosario's third tweet and reported it to the staff. Since that potential threat could only be carried out by Rosario on school grounds to one of his classmates...it's fairly reasonable to see why he was suspended.

The privacy concerns were ruled against because the court perceived no threat regarding the first and second tweets. The school however got a hold of the third one and it's likely that's why he got suspended. It has nothing to do with SLAPP.

Spelling it out:
Given that the court didn't find a threat in the first two tweets, he decides to make the third tweet and rub it in their noses. That's actually illegal to do here in the US. It's called harassment and it's not covered by the foray amendment one iota...his first two tweets are not the issue, it's the third one that's showing evidence of his harassment. It's like getting a distance based restraining order and purposefully being within the radial distance of that person just to get that person in trouble or intimidate them to move.

He was rightfully suspended because he made what could easily be perceived as a threat, not because of him winning his case. Like the AC ( (I may have) said, a classmate who isn't friends with Rosario, who could likely not be seen as his friend inside or outside of school, who also follows him on twitter, could easily have perceived it as a threat and reported it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Why are you constantly bringing up a bomb threat? HE DIDN'T MAKE A BOMB THREAT!

At worst, there is a very vague implication of a threat in #3. VAGUE. Not enough to say there was a threat. Did he say anything at all about harming or causing harm to anyone, in any way, any method at all of causing harm? No, he dared people to snitch on him. That is all.
So basically in your eyes, the ones doing the complaining are the ones who get to say whether something actually legally is or is not a threat? WTF?

I find your comments threatening. They threaten to lower the collective IQ of mankind. Therefore, even though I'm the one making the complaint, I'm also the one who gets to say whether you are guilty of the charge. You are guilty and I'm going to your boss, and getting you fired.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Why are you constantly bringing up a bomb threat? HE DIDN'T MAKE A BOMB THREAT!"

It is because of a perceived threat of a situation that can only happen on school grounds.

The follower that reported it was likely a classmate who MAY HAVE felt a bit threatened by tweet number three. Said classmate would likely only ever encounter Rosario at school...hence the back reasoning for suspension in the eyes of the rather humiliated faculty. The tweet occurred after a school event yes but one thing we aren't told is if the staff in question was watching the film reel from the game. There's a lot of think and guess work that this causes.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

He was rightfully suspended because he made what could easily be perceived as a threat, not because of him winning his case. Like the AC ( (I may have) said, a classmate who isn't friends with Rosario, who could likely not be seen as his friend inside or outside of school, who also follows him on twitter, could easily have perceived it as a threat and reported it.

I'm at a bit of a loss as to how that could be a perceived threat. There was no threat implicitly stated or even inferred in that tweet. Even if there were, said tweet occurred off school grounds and was not directed towards the school, thus it is outside of their jurisdiction.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

But even if we take the third tweet as directed at the students, unlike Wally taking it as directed to the teachers, it's still not harassment. It's vulgar, yes, but it's not harassment or intimidation, it's a challenge. He's saying "I dare you to tell the teachers on me because it's a fight I know I'll win." He just didn't take into account how thin skinned his teachers were, but that's not his fault nor is it illegal.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

In the US, it is legally considered harassment to egg someone on into a loaded lawsuit that you know you'll win when in previous incidents indicate that no rights were violated. His rights were not violated before he made the tweets ergo his egging them on in the third tweet is legally harassment.

The third tweet I don't think it was directed at the students, but one of them could have seen it as such. It's likely this person may only have been a classmate of Rosario's and not someone in his circle. Either way it was said, somebody got rubbed the wrong way, and part of the issue is that the student that perceived it as a threat likely only saw Rosario at school. I think that the AC has something there.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

What if he murdered one of the faculty members then tweeted about it?

No one cars about made up bullshit allegedly not a sockpuppet Wally AC. What matters was what was actually said which was a) no libelous (or any other kind of defamation) and b) not a threat to anyway.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You're trying to justify the rights of someone who regardless of timing, committed slander.

No Wally, I am simply trying to correct your incorrect and illogical arguments. Like when you keep saying he committed slander. I don't believe he did. But even so, only a court can determine if something is truly libelous or slanderous, not me, not you and surely not the school administration.

Re:

Question

Tim, regardless of school policy, he can be suspended for slander. The fact that Rosario said what he said here

3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me

Indicates rather clearly knew exactly what he was doing was slanderous and is provoking them after a court ruling. That's harassment in the same way as filing a restraining order against someone and then purposefully putting yourself within the distance you requested the person stay away from you in the restraining order only to get them in more trouble.

Rosario with that tweet provoked the staff and got suspended for violating their rights as the accused. It saved the kid from being thrown in juvenile hall.

Re: Question

"Indicates rather clearly knew exactly what he was doing was slanderous and is provoking them..."

No, it indicates that he was being a dick and he knew it. It also suggests that he knew that he shouldn't get into trouble and he was daring someone to say something. I do that all the time when I know I'm in the right.

"... after a court ruling"

Court ruling? Where did the kid get yelled at by a court before he tweeted?

"... for violating their rights as the accused."

Who's rights were violated? It was just an idiot kid talking smack. That's not a violation of rights. I could call you a punk ass bitch all I wanted, and you could do fuck all about it.

Re: Question

Oh yes, "slander". Disregarding the all-too-obvious difference between slander and personal opinion evident here, calling "slander" on a teenager like this is the adult-child equivalent of standing on the school playground yelling "No, I'm not!" to a bully who clearly is pulling their strings.

All this harm from the angsty impulse-pit of a typical adolescent acne-farm whose like the school is supposed to be capable of not only educating, but understanding.

Someone needs to tell those people to grow up, shut up and stop wasting taxpayer dollars.

Re: Re: Re: Question

Is that he knows he's venting without censoring and there is nothing anyone can or really should do about it until after the fact, if at all?

Should he be too scared to vent? Should he be scared of repercussions for talking dirtier than Richard Pryor? Is that the offense? He didn't take his school prescribed fear pills?

The more I hear from the school-admin mentality in the modern age, the more I fear they are just tools churning out Fed raised clones for use in Darth-whoever's personal army.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but I know the way some "adults" act is a shame, and a sham. The people running this school are setting very poor examples for their students... the last thing this country needs is yet another generation of litigious fucks.

Wally...you've done it again. I've gone through the comments on this article and all yours show is you have NOT read the article at all. You make reference to the kid making the tweets during the sports match, an official school function, when a simple glance at the article would have revealed it was during his dinner, at home. Others point it out to you and you completely ignore it.
What you have completely forgotten is that, in the US, they have a little thing called the First Amendment, meaning that you can say pretty much whatever you want without fear of reprisal. The school teachers and administrators, being officials of a publicly funded school, would be bound to protect the First Amendment, especially since the speech was made well outside of school grounds and school hours.
If the speech was libel/slander, they could have sued him for that in court (and that is in of and itself an extreme action), instead of unilaterally suspending him. By suspending him, they have revealed that they are not protecting freedom of speech, and that they will punish speech that they have no legal authority to punish (remember, this was OUTSIDE school grounds and school hours).

If the kid had made these remarks during school hours, fine, throw the book at him. But he didn't. He was on his own time, and he never sent the messages to the teachers.

Re: Re:

Freedom of speech is only usable when damage isn't done to others. Now you can swear amd curse all you want and say really stupid random shit all you want too...The question is when does the intimidation, the harrassament based upon another's beliefs, and violating others rights in the process of your view of "free speech" stand?

Freedom of speech means you have a right to your own opinions but only can voices them if you don't violate other's rights as you voice it.

The citizens of the US take free speech a lot further than their government does so please don't blame them for what their government is doing.

Re: Re: Re:

Interesting but apparently nonsequitur blurb on the limitations to free-speech.

You didn't tie these statements to anything from the article or the boy's tweets. That makes sense to me since we're looking at an obvious ranting, venting of personal opinion with no general or specific threats to anyone. But why go to the trouble to write about the limitations without citable text in the article at hand?

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

He sent the messages to everyone else but the teachers...people argued that since the teachers didn't see it, it was private...yet his post was to the public on Twitter. Regardless of time and place, the article had no sense of the first amendment concerning libel. You failed to notice his third tweet mentioned in the article saying that he could say what ever he wanted and basically threatened anyone who would tell on him. His statements are not protected because Rosario made a threat and then proceeded with his libelous statements.

3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me

Using intimidation like that will not ever be protected by first amendment rights and the judge only went by what was specifically written in school policy. The suspension was not for the tweets but for the intimidation of other students not to rat him out. Someone felt threatened and that's all it takes to make the rest of what he said on twitter libelous. It is unfortunate to see that the little shit got away with it because his defense decided to focus the case away from the main reason of suspension.

Re: Re:

Actually you have no idea what libel is apparently believing it to have something to do with if the person being spoken to can see the comments. It doesn't. That's not what libel is. Now you're accusing him of making 'threats' and 'intimidation' which is equally ludicrous.

"Someone felt threatened and that's all it takes to make the rest of what he said on twitter libelous."

No. This is not what libel is. There isn't even an actual threat in any of the tweets.

You're just making shit up, ignoring the facts of the case, and redefining terms over and over.

Re: Re:

Dude, ur not reading. The article mentions that the court rejected the privacy concerns, and also.. If you have used twitter you will know that "everyone except the teachers" is not one of the privacy settings on it.

You are right, people who use colourful language are not protected by the first ammendment (and neither is anyone else is we are being honest)

Re: Re: Re:

Still intimidating though. I mean the third tweet would almost certainly entail intimidation and harrassment which is outside of what Wally's argument on Libel...but libel is slander in printed or image form and it does dishonor his teachers and staff in imaging printed form. Which, according to UN Article 17, all people have a right to be protected against dishonours claims and opinions. Privacy or not that still stands in US law bevause that was the nation that proposed the article.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Also, saying someone is a B*tch or a Douch or whatever is not libel or slander as it does not make any claims, it's just an opinion. It's a colourful way of saying "I don't like my teacher". Everyone except apparently you is well aware that the student is stating an opinion and not actually trying to make the false claim that the teacher is a female canine or feminine hygene product.

Re: Re:

"3. Now I can tweet whatever I want and I hope one of y'all mother f*ckers snitch on me"

I'm sorry...but where's the threat? I don't see any intimidation there. Besides, I could've sworn that for something to be considered legally a threat, it has to be specific . Number 3 up there is general, it doesn't mention any one specific, so even if one were to somehow construe a threat from that (notice how he doesn't say he'll do anything at all, he just hopes someone will snitch...) it still wouldn't count as a threat to do violence legally since he hasn't actually threatened anyone specific.

Anyway...what about libel or slander? None of his comments have been declared by a court to be so. So I don't know why you're suddenly declaring they are, and thus, not protected by the First Amendment. Were you the judge in this case?

Lastly...again, you have yet to admit to the many mistakes you made here in the comments. Why?

Re: Re:

Do you even know how twitter works?

He didn't send it to "everyone else but the teachers". He sent it to only his followers on twitter which likely contained primarily his friends and a few other schoolmates. "everyone else" including the general public, you, and the teachers could not see it.

Re: Re:

For something to be libelous or slanderous, you have to make a factual assertion about someone that is both damaging and untrue. I don't see anything the kid tweeted that rises to that that -- he was making an emotional expression that nobody would believe was intended as a factual assertion.

Whether or not you try to hide the speech, the speech is offensive or obscene, etc., doesn't enter into whether or not it's slanderous.

Using intimidation like that will not ever be protected by first amendment rights

I don't see that tweet as being intimidating at all. There's no threat. It's just cocky douchebaggery.

omeone felt threatened and that's all it takes to make the rest of what he said on twitter libelous.

If someone felt threatened, that alone wouldn't be enough to make the statement unprotected speech. Also, even if it is unprotected speech, that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not any of the tweets were libelous.

RE: RIP Tinker v. Des Moines

Sad that the administrators who should be examples of what it means to be a public servant, fail to show grace to a teenager's angst. Yes, the behavior of the teenager was atrocious, but the response of the administrators was worse. It is their responsibility as public servants to uphold the decisions of the Supreme Court, and as school administrators to mold the minds of future citizens by modeling appropriate behavior.

Libel, slander, and defamation

A lot of wrong on this thread (mainly by Wally). I'll attempt to set folks straight, with my admittedly non-lawyer understanding of the law.

First, there's confusion among the terms. Defamation is the general term that covers libel and slander. Libel is defamation that is published in written form. Slander is verbal defamation made to the public.

Now, to be defamation, a number of conditions must be met:

1. It must consist of false statements;
2. It must be stated as fact, not opinion;
3. It must actually cause measurable harm to the subject.

Furthermore, there is a far higher bar if the person is a public official or public figure.

It is absolutely clear that none of the kid's statements could be considered defamatory. They are obviously statements of opinion, not statements of fact. (In fact, how would you prove the truth or falsehood that someone is a "bitch?") And there is no way that they actually caused measurable harm to the subjects.

Also, most states have recognized teachers as public officials. It would thus be the burden of the teacher to show that the kid knew his statements were factually false, and directly intended to cause measurable harm to the teacher (e.g. that the kid deliberately published false statements specifically to get the teacher fired).

The fact that the kid's tweets could only be read by people following him, actually acts against the notion that it is defamation, because it is not deliberately spread to the general public, and especially because none of his followers are likely to be in a position to get the teachers fired (thus no showing of actual harm).

In any case, if it were truly libel, the appropriate action would be a lawsuit - not suspension. It is unlawful to suspend a student for speech activities carried on outside of school grounds.

The socialist Educated Elites want nothing more then complete rewriting of our Constitution as to set up a Government that run everyone's lives dictating every single aspect of their lives, with them making the suggestions that what is acceptable and which is not.wait isn't that what democrats are doing now?

This is to advise that because of an illegal warrant for cyberstalking, and other salient reasons including my terrible health at this time, I have been a prisoner in my own home since the last of March of this year. An order for my arrest must have been based on the illegal warrant because Asheville police are now trying to serve this order for arrest and hold me in the Buncombe County Jail under a $5,000 bond which I cannot make. I cannot begin to tell you what outrages against the Supreme Law of the Land this prosecution is, and these other anomalies are.

The illegal order for arrest and punitive high bond is also illegal for more reasons than that the OFA is based on an illegal warrant. My two doctors, Dr. Hemme and Dr. Goebel, both faxed to the designated courthouse numbers listed on the clerk’s website that I would be unable to attend court on 2 April 2014. I am informed that these faxes were placed in the files in the criminal case, 13 CR 58245 and the so-called civil case, Grist vs. Smith, 13 CVD 4701. These faxes were intended that in any case in which I am a party or witness, I am unable at this time to attend court because of degenerative disc disease, scoliosis, nerve root stenoses, and tremendous pain and weakness.

Therefore, any attempt at effecting my arrest, pursuing the OFA, pursuing the illegal criminal warrant, pursuing any followup on the matters, 13 CVD 4701 or Buncombe County vs. James L. Smith, 13 CVD 1106, including hearings or other matters that affect my freedom or property rights, until I am able to attend court, will be deemed a violation of my civil rights protected by the Constitutions of the United States and North Carolina, and secured by 42 U.S. Code, Section 1983; and 18 U.S. Code, Section 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law).

In this regard you will please note that I was scheduled for emergency L-1,L-2,L-3 disc surgery by Dr.Goebel approximately a month ago and had to postpone this emergency because of so many pending court actions. And frankly, I was just too sick with fever to get to the hospital.

The object as with all of these frivolous and malicious lawsuits has been to hold me in a state of sheer terror, destroy my dignity, turn me into an outcast, plunge me into an abyss of hopelessness, steal my property, overthrow my brain, and break my heart.